Security Essentials for Windows XP will die when the OS does

The antivirus software will stop getting updates, and you won't be able to install it.

There are three months to go for Windows XP. The ancient operating system is leaving extended support on April 8, at which point Microsoft will no longer ship free security fixes. XP itself isn't the only thing that's losing support on that date. The Windows XP version of Microsoft Security Essentials, the company's anti-malware app, will stop receiving signature updates on that date and will also be removed for download.

The message is clear: after April 8, Windows XP will be insecure, and Redmond isn't going to provide even a partial remedy for the security issues that will arise. Antivirus software is just papering over the cracks if the operating system itself isn't getting fixed.

In contrast, both Google and Mozilla will provide updates for Windows XP versions of Chrome and Firefox beyond the cessation of Microsoft's support. Google has committed to supporting Chrome until April 2015.

With three months to go and Windows XP still holding almost a thirty-percent usage share of the Web, the ending of support is going to have an impact on a lot of people. Still, it's unlikely that killing off MSE is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back and forces these Windows XP holdouts to upgrade.

The big question is, what will? XP's end of life shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but there are plenty of XP users who evidently don't care. There's no chance now that the remaining users will migrate off the operating system in the few remaining months of support. An abundance of insecure, exploitable, and most likely exploited Windows XP machines is now an inevitability.

A lot of these users actually don't know that they will be unsupported. You see Windows XP (unfortunately) in many small offices - an example is dentist's offices - where they are running a whole system (generally provided by some system integrator). There is no "IT guy" there, and, from the looks of things, these integrators have not been beating a path to their customer's doors trying to get them to upgrade. If they have been, their sales pitches have been woeful because you sure do still see a lot of XP in these environments.

On the other side of the scale equation - in Northern California, I believe I was still seeing Windows XP on my last visit to a Kaiser Permenente medical office (and they are a large company).

Yes, I still use a 10 year old laptop. Why not? The resolution (1400*1050) is far greater than on any comparable contemporary laptop, and it still runs Office 2003 just fine, although lately I've been using LibreOffice. Surfing the web? Sure! It's way faster than my phone or tablet for that. Really, the only reason to give it up is that Microsoft says so - so I'll just dump Microsoft.

I'm not sure what my employer will do. We have several XP PCs, but mostly because we support customers who are still on XP. I guess we'll have to disconnect our XP PCs from the internet and keep them around until all our customers upgrade. OTOH, we don't have any Windows 8 PCs, which is what I would assume our customers will have to buy. Outta my pay grade! I just get to clean up the mess the big wigs leave behind.

I set my father-in-law up this way a little while back. He had an old laptop that was barely still running XP. I threw an Ubuntu LTS release on there and he's been happily using it since. He's even been staying on top of software updates -- he called me up the one time there was a glitch in the update process!

Yes, I still use a 10 year old laptop. Why not? The resolution (1400*1050) is far greater than on any comparable contemporary laptop, and it still runs Office 2003 just fine, although lately I've been using LibreOffice. Surfing the web? Sure! It's way faster than my phone or tablet for that. Really, the only reason to give it up is that Microsoft says so - so I'll just dump Microsoft.

If you can get a video driver (and other necessary drivers), your laptop should run Win8.1 just fine, assuming it meets the basic specs. I've got a 2005 laptop (not at all one of my "working" machines, but just a holdover that just won't die...) upon which I just installed Win8.1 and, aside from some difficulties getting the video driver to upload, the install was seamless and the machine actually runs *faster* under W8.1 than it did under XP. The former has a lighter footprint to accommodate tablets, which also happens to make it more suitable for older hardware you might still be running.

So much noise is being made about Microsoft officially discontinuing security updates for XP. Even more noise is made about how users should migrate away. While that's not a bad idea in itself, why should users be expected/required to move away from a perfectly serviceable OS that runs well on their hardware?

I support using the tools that work well for you. If that means using a Mac, use a Mac. If that means using Linux, use Linux. If that means running a MS OS, then run that. Just because an OS has been around for more than couple years doesn't mean its bad.

As for security, it matters quite a bit more as to what software is installed - or not installed - on your OS. Cracking into a Win7 machine that has Java installed (for example) isn't that hard, even when its fully patched. What matters more is using good security policies, a proper firewall, and closing off known vulnerabilities (like Java,etc.) Of course there's better security architecture in the newer offerings from MS, but no software can protect itself from an ill-informed user clicking "yes" on everything.

XP usage will certainly continue to decline, but it isn't going away soon either. Nor is it especially likely to suddenly become host to various botnets the day after extended support is removed. At least - not significantly more so than it already is.

I'm not sure what my employer will do. We have several XP PCs, but mostly because we support customers who are still on XP. I guess we'll have to disconnect our XP PCs from the internet and keep them around until all our customers upgrade. OTOH, we don't have any Windows 8 PCs, which is what I would assume our customers will have to buy. Outta my pay grade! I just get to clean up the mess the big wigs leave behind.

You can't create a few windows xp virtual machines for testing/legacy support purposes? That's what we do...

While Microsoft Security Essentials may drop XP support, I know many security vendors will not. Too much money to leave on the table. While it is an issue, not sure it will make that much of an impact above the already present issue of the system not receiving security updates.

Don't be so naive as to think that the only user type out there is ma and pa consumer running WinXP on their aging Dell, as the article seems to imply. There are many legitimate reasons why businesses need to continue running and supporting XP, even if Microsoft doesn't. Software doesn't rust, and many applications that won't run on Vista/7/8--MS applications, no less--but *do* run on XP are still essential to business operations.

That being said, there isn't any reason why an XP SP3 machine not connected to the Internet at large isn't still a perfectly cromulant little operating system for some dedicated tasks.

Don't be so naive to think that the only user out there is ma and pa consumer running WinXP on their aging Dell, as the article seems to imply. There are many legitimate reasons why businesses need to continue running and supporting XP, even if Microsoft doesn't. Software doesn't rust, and many applications that won't run on Vista/7/8--MS applications, no less--but *do* run on XP are still essential to business operations.

Sorry, but those aren't legitimate reasons. It's not like Microsoft is just pulling the rug out from under these people. They've had plenty of notice and multiple support extensions provided to allow them to get their shit in order.

So much noise is being made about Microsoft officially discontinuing security updates for XP. Even more noise is made about how users should migrate away. While that's not a bad idea in itself, why should users be expected/required to move away from a perfectly serviceable OS that runs well on their hardware?

I support using the tools that work well for you. If that means using a Mac, use a Mac. If that means using Linux, use Linux. If that means running a MS OS, then run that. Just because an OS has been around for more than couple years doesn't mean its bad.

As for security, it matters quite a bit more as to what software is installed - or not installed - on your OS. Cracking into a Win7 machine that has Java installed (for example) isn't that hard, even when its fully patched. What matters more is using good security policies, a proper firewall, and closing off known vulnerabilities (like Java,etc.) Of course there's better security architecture in the newer offerings from MS, but no software can protect itself from an ill-informed user clicking "yes" on everything.

XP usage will certainly continue to decline, but it isn't going away soon either. Nor is it especially likely to suddenly become host to various botnets the day after extended support is removed. At least - not significantly more so than it already is.

Compared to Windows 7, XP is a slow and insecure trainwreck.

@ The person talking about medical practices

From what I've seen and heard they will run on ancient equipment until it is either unsupported by their software they need to operate or you can't fix them anymore.

Don't be so naive as to think that the only user type out there is ma and pa consumer running WinXP on their aging Dell, as the article seems to imply. There are many legitimate reasons why businesses need to continue running and supporting XP, even if Microsoft doesn't. Software doesn't rust, and many applications that won't run on Vista/7/8--MS applications, no less--but *do* run on XP are still essential to business operations.

That being said, there isn't any reason why an XP SP3 machine not connected to the Internet at large isn't still a perfectly cromulant little operating system for some dedicated tasks.

I can tell you there are still companies with Server 2000 systems that are so critical they haven't touched. XP will be around in some form for years to come. Hopefully the numbers drop quickly, but it isn't going anywhere.

Can anyone recommend a free lightweight antivirus program for a circa-2003 laptop? No money in the budget to get a new laptop, so I'm stuck with XP for now (linux not an option).

Avast is relatively lightweight IF you do a custom install and turn off all the components but the file shield and the program updater. You can turn on the mail shield if you need it, as well. Avast's default install is horribly bloated. I think there may be comparable settings for AVG but I don't know what they are.

So much noise is being made about Microsoft officially discontinuing security updates for XP. Even more noise is made about how users should migrate away. While that's not a bad idea in itself, why should users be expected/required to move away from a perfectly serviceable OS that runs well on their hardware?

I support using the tools that work well for you. If that means using a Mac, use a Mac. If that means using Linux, use Linux. If that means running a MS OS, then run that. Just because an OS has been around for more than couple years doesn't mean its bad.

As for security, it matters quite a bit more as to what software is installed - or not installed - on your OS. Cracking into a Win7 machine that has Java installed (for example) isn't that hard, even when its fully patched. What matters more is using good security policies, a proper firewall, and closing off known vulnerabilities (like Java,etc.) Of course there's better security architecture in the newer offerings from MS, but no software can protect itself from an ill-informed user clicking "yes" on everything.

XP usage will certainly continue to decline, but it isn't going away soon either. Nor is it especially likely to suddenly become host to various botnets the day after extended support is removed. At least - not significantly more so than it already is.

Compared to Windows 7, XP is a slow and insecure trainwreck.

@ The person talking about medical practices

From what I've seen and heard they will run on ancient equipment until it is either unsupported by their software they need to operate or you can't fix them anymore.

I've heard that speed comment too often to let it go. Sorry, but that statement is simply not accurate. I've seen more than once how WinXP runs faster on identical hardware than Win7. It may be less natively secure and I won't debate the "trainwreck" comment as that can mean too many things, but as for speed - XP wins consistently on certain older hardware. It also takes up much less space on the HD, which matters on older machines that may only have a ~70Gb HD or so.

Ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all e-PHI (electronic protected health information) they create, receive, maintain or transmit; Identify and protect against reasonably anticipated threats to the security or integrity of the information; Protect against reasonably anticipated, impermissible uses or disclosures; and Ensure compliance by their workforce."

Yes, I still use a 10 year old laptop. Why not? The resolution (1400*1050) is far greater than on any comparable contemporary laptop, and it still runs Office 2003 just fine, although lately I've been using LibreOffice. Surfing the web? Sure! It's way faster than my phone or tablet for that. Really, the only reason to give it up is that Microsoft says so - so I'll just dump Microsoft.

If you can get a video driver (and other necessary drivers), your laptop should run Win8.1 just fine, assuming it meets the basic specs. I've got a 2005 laptop (not at all one of my "working" machines, but just a holdover that just won't die...) upon which I just installed Win8.1 and, aside from some difficulties getting the video driver to upload, the install was seamless and the machine actually runs *faster* under W8.1 than it did under XP.

Seconded. Up until fairly recently my main Windows laptop was a vintage 2005 Dell Inspiron 9300, and the only post-XP that I haven't run on that system is Vista. I had to do some minor driver hunting, but aside from that everything worked great with Windows 8. Office 2013 worked great on it after I disabled a few of the fancy animations (my 9300 has a 1920x1200 LCD panel driven by a RADEON X300, so its video performance isn't so hot). I also managed to squeeze a bit more battery life out of it after upgrading to Windows 7/8.

It is actually a more stable system than its replacement (an Inspiron 17R SE, which shipped with Windows 8) and it really didn't feel much slower than the newer one does for most tasks. Even going back and forth between the 9300 and my i7 desktop wasn't all that uncomfortable.

Can anyone recommend a free lightweight antivirus program for a circa-2003 laptop? No money in the budget to get a new laptop, so I'm stuck with XP for now (linux not an option).

Avast is relatively lightweight IF you do a custom install and turn off all the components but the file shield and the program updater. You can turn on the mail shield if you need it, as well. Avast's default install is horribly bloated. I think there may be comparable settings for AVG but I don't know what they are.

2nd vote of support on Avast. Good capabilities while staying lightweight.

There are ongoing migration efforts that should reduce the global install base of XP by the time it officially EOLs. The Government of Canada, for instance, is frantically migrating its users to Windows 7, having wasted so much time with the preparation project that there's now only a few months to actually complete it.